Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[SultanOfSurreal]

You have it backwards. We are not claiming we can prove God exists. You assert there is proof he does not. It is you who needs to provide the proof. We simply say it is a matter of belief.

no, sorry, you are an idiot and a charlatan. there is no evidence that god exists, so the only logical position to take is that he does not. it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that he exists, not on me to prove that he doesn't, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that any specific god you can think of is impossible, but the idea of "god" in general is so ridiculously vague and all-encompassing that it can never be definitively disproved, only disbelieved in the absence of overwhelming evidence (of which there is precisely none).

but really. if you don't shut up about logic i will shit in your eyesockets. you know absolutely nothing about logic or science, although it's clear you think you do. seeing you prattle on like this causes me physical pain. seeing you make the most basic of mistakes about the most basic rules of logic and then claiming in the same breath that you have "studied" "logic and science" as if that isn't so vague as to be meaningless, makes me want to punch you right in your smug little face.

it is rare to come across someone so blithely ignorant and proud of it though, so congrats on that.

[pimpdave]

You have it backwards. We are not claiming we can prove God exists. You assert there is proof he does not. It is you who needs to provide the proof. We simply say it is a matter of belief.

no, sorry, you are an idiot and a charlatan. there is no evidence that god exists, so the only logical position to take is that he does not. it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that he exists, not on me to prove that he doesn't, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

I hate to say it, but you're both right on this one. Player is 100% right because she doesn't need evidence when there's faith, and you SoS, are right, because one can't prove a negative.

It's one of those yin-yang things, but that's probably a weaker analogy than I'm really trying to make.

Point is, don't be calling Player a charlatan, dude. Not cool. At all. Also, she's mos def not an idiot, but that's not nearly as bad as calling her a charlatan. Way out of line on that.

Best check yoself before you wreck yoself.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Point is, don't be calling Player a charlatan, dude. Not cool. At all. Also, she's mos def not an idiot, but that's not nearly as bad as calling her a charlatan. Way out of line on that.

whoa man sorry I told the truth, anyone claiming to have studied logic should probably know where the burden of proof lies and shouldn't insist someone prove a negative. if they do i can only assume they are lying about being so amazingly well-learned. and so i say again: this player character is a liar.

if she had stuck with the touchy-feely "but i don't need evidence cause i got faith, maaaaaan" argument, then i would have simply mocked her for being dumb, but to insist that there is somehow evidence for god's existence because i can't prove every aspect of that existence false is far beyond stupid -- it is disingenuous, and deserving of nothing more than public scorn

[Gregrios]

You have it backwards. We are not claiming we can prove God exists. You assert there is proof he does not. It is you who needs to provide the proof. We simply say it is a matter of belief.

no, sorry, you are an idiot and a charlatan. there is no evidence that god exists, so the only logical position to take is that he does not. it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that he exists, not on me to prove that he doesn't, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that any specific god you can think of is impossible, but the idea of "god" in general is so ridiculously vague and all-encompassing that it can never be definitively disproved, only disbelieved in the absence of overwhelming evidence (of which there is precisely none).

but really. if you don't shut up about logic i will shit in your eyesockets. you know absolutely nothing about logic or science, although it's clear you think you do. seeing you prattle on like this causes me physical pain. seeing you make the most basic of mistakes about the most basic rules of logic and then claiming in the same breath that you have "studied" "logic and science" as if that isn't so vague as to be meaningless, makes me want to punch you right in your smug little face.

it is rare to come across someone so blithely ignorant and proud of it though, so congrats on that.

Wow, another internet tough guy. Unfortunely you're a dime a dozen. Why don't you just keep your idol threats to yourself, tough guy.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Wow, another internet tough guy. Unfortunely you're a dime a dozen. Why don't you just keep your idol threats to yourself, tough guy.

i am far from an internet tough guy, my "threats" of violence are just hyperbole to get across how maddeningly stupid player is. also:

idol threats

lol

[Gregrios]

Wow, another internet tough guy. Unfortunely you're a dime a dozen. Why don't you just keep your idle threats to yourself, tough guy.

i am far from an internet tough guy, my "threats" of violence are just hyperbole to get across how maddeningly stupid player is. also:

idol threats

lol

That's a reason, not an excuse. As for my bad spelling, I must be watching too much american idol.

[pimpdave]

if she had stuck with the touchy-feely "but i don't need evidence cause i got faith, maaaaaan" argument, then i would have simply mocked her for being dumb,

Yeah, but that's just it. She's wicked smart, dog.

Faith doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. I really think you're out of line calling her dumb, or an idiot, or a charlatan for having faith.

Perhaps you could call her self-deceived, since you think she's wrong, but you really can't put either a moral or reasonable label upon faith. I know, it can be very frustrating at times, when people hide behind their faith in order to avoid having to use reason and logic to answer questions or validate their claims.

But I assure you, that in the case of Player, she doesn't play that game. She's straight up one of the regulars here I admire most, and if you fail to see why she is deserving of admiration, then you need to either read more of her posts in other threads, or else stop trolling.

Just sayin.

[SultanOfSurreal]

blah blah blah

Just sayin.

What I'm saying is that if she had stuck to this argument of faith i would have merely disrespected her opinion, but to claim my logic is somehow incorrect because i can't solve the problem of induction throws her very intelligence into question, or otherwise she was being willfully disingenuous

[Neoteny]

I think pimp just wants you to stop being a dick. I think that being a dick has its place, and its definitely called "the internet," although its fun in real life too. It's unfortunate that I agree with you, because I like PLAYER as well.

Also, just to make sure everyone knows whose thread this is...

Click image to enlarge.

[SultanOfSurreal]

considering that this is at base a website for playing Risk i would be amenable to settling differences via a game if any party here is feeling particularly spurned and wants to be further humiliated (oh snap). just as long as spoils are flat rate or turned off completely.

[john9blue]

considering that this is at base a website for playing Risk i would be amenable to settling differences via a game if any party here is feeling particularly spurned and wants to be further humiliated (oh snap). just as long as spoils are flat rate or turned off completely.

Playing a game doesn't determine who is right. That's a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad riskum.

[SultanOfSurreal]

considering that this is at base a website for playing Risk i would be amenable to settling differences via a game if any party here is feeling particularly spurned and wants to be further humiliated (oh snap). just as long as spoils are flat rate or turned off completely.

Playing a game doesn't determine who is right. That's a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad riskum.

c'mon brosef there is a difference between settling differences and proving who is right

besides, it would be more fun than internet god argument #34,510,834

[neanderpaul14]

no, sorry, you are an idiot and a charlatan. there is no evidence that god exists, so the only logical position to take is that he does not. it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that he exists, not on me to prove that he doesn't, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that any specific god you can think of is impossible, but the idea of "god" in general is so ridiculously vague and all-encompassing that it can never be definitively disproved, only disbelieved in the absence of overwhelming evidence (of which there is precisely none).

Holy crap........As much as I hate to admit it I agree with Sultan on this one.

[john9blue]

I guess I'll answer...

no, sorry, you are an idiot and a charlatan. there is no evidence that god exists, so the only logical position to take is that he does not. it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that he exists, not on me to prove that he doesn't, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

The idea that "the burden of proof lies in the one bringing forth the proposition" is the basis behind the atheist argument and I think it is incorrect. The way to go about disproving something (such as Russell's teapot) is to formulate an alternative, mutually exclusive proposition. If we say "there are no invisible teapots", then we can come up with evidence (every teapot that we have ever seen) to support that. Since "there are no invisible teapots" and "Russell's teapot exists" cannot both be true, any evidence supporting the former automatically refutes the latter. So we can conclude that Russell's teapot most likely doesn't exist. However, you would be hard-pressed to do the same thing to God.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I guess I'll answer...

no, sorry, you are an idiot and a charlatan. there is no evidence that god exists, so the only logical position to take is that he does not. it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that he exists, not on me to prove that he doesn't, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

The idea that "the burden of proof lies in the one bringing forth the proposition" is the basis behind the atheist argument and I think it is incorrect. The way to go about disproving something (such as Russell's teapot) is to formulate an alternative, mutually exclusive proposition. If we say "there are no invisible teapots", then we can come up with evidence (every teapot that we have ever seen) to support that. Since "there are no invisible teapots" and "Russell's teapot exists" cannot both be true, any evidence supporting the former automatically refutes the latter. So we can conclude that Russell's teapot most likely doesn't exist. However, you would be hard-pressed to do the same thing to God.

this is the problem of induction in a nutshell. just because we have never observed the evidence that there is an exception to x rule or that y exists, does not mean that there isn't an exception or that the thing does not exist, strictly speaking. And a series of observations of non-invisible teapots is really the only way to prove the alternative proposition, so you never truly disprove the original proposition, just add more observations that seem to make the probability of the first proposition increasingly unlikely.

of course to refuse to accept inductive reasoning is in most cases backwards and would make everyday life impossible, so we accept that reasoning and place the burden of proof on the claimant. your alternative proposition idea is nice but utter hogwash, because it still amounts to proving a negative, only couched in the terms of a positive

[Iliad]

I guess I'll answer...

no, sorry, you are an idiot and a charlatan. there is no evidence that god exists, so the only logical position to take is that he does not. it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that he exists, not on me to prove that he doesn't, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

The idea that "the burden of proof lies in the one bringing forth the proposition" is the basis behind the atheist argument and I think it is incorrect. The way to go about disproving something (such as Russell's teapot) is to formulate an alternative, mutually exclusive proposition. If we say "there are no invisible teapots", then we can come up with evidence (every teapot that we have ever seen) to support that. Since "there are no invisible teapots" and "Russell's teapot exists" cannot both be true, any evidence supporting the former automatically refutes the latter. So we can conclude that Russell's teapot most likely doesn't exist. However, you would be hard-pressed to do the same thing to God.

So your disproof for invisible teapots is that you have only seen the visible ones? Are you slightly confused about the meaning of the word invisible?

You did not disprove Russel's teapots. Yes we see the visible teapots, however you cannot DISPROVE invisible teapots. You can list all the evidence of visible teapots and the sort and I can "refute" all that. Most teapots are visible but this one is invisible, and you cannot disprove its existence. I can come up with all kinds of fantastical claims about fairies, dragons etc. And that is exactly what gods are. If you come up with such a fantastical claim you have to prove it.

[john9blue]

Well, as long as we never detect anything invisible, there's no reason to believe in the teapot, is there? It has no reason for existing. God does- the fact that there is anything at all. I think you'll agree that it's not very likely that the universe created itself... especially considering the conservation of matter and energy, and the fact that all physical events need a cause.

[Iliad]

Well, as long as we never detect anything invisible, there's no reason to believe in the teapot, is there? It has no reason for existing. God does- the fact that there is anything at all. I think you'll agree that it's not very likely that the universe created itself... especially considering the conservation of matter and energy, and the fact that all physical events need a cause.

The original Russel's teapot is not in fact invisible, just hiding as it rotates behind another planet.

No god doesn't have reason for existing. "God did it" is just an adult way of saying "I don't know"
And you know what's worse-it stunts progress. It's not "Gee, I don't know but I'll try to find out what it is" it's "God did it! End of story, that's all you need to know"
Just because we don't fully understand right now something about this universe, that does not somehow prove the existence of a god. Saying there is a god is just shifting it onto god. Science has come really far in the past 2000 years, explaining what used to be explained by "God did it". One day we will understand more about the causes behind the beginning of the universe. Until then let's adopt a little humility and stop pretending we're the bloody centre of the universe.

[LordThor]

Evolution: Has factually based evidence to back up theory.
Creation: Has factually based evidence to back up theory.

The difference for me is Evolution has factually based evidance that disproves the Creation theory, and the Creation Theory then evolves to take into acount this new factually based evidence.
Man has always needed to have at least one higher being to keep control of its population, to blame for crop failures, natural disasters, terrible and tragic events, in fact anything man has not understood or accepted that has occured in his local envioroment, but not just to blame for disasters also to give hope, a beliefe in a higher being is also inspirational to man and can help him achieve greater things simply by a belief that he has a purpose and can make a difference for the better.
Yes i am an athiest, but to me a belief in a higher being of greater moral values, is a good thing, it helps to keep society civilised, we all agree if i where to murder my next door neighbour for his possesions it would be morally wrong, a belief in a higher being i believe over the course of human kind was used to carve these morals.
To end my views, if you truely believe your right, thats all that should really matter to you.

[PLAYER57832]

no, sorry, you are an idiot and a charlatan. there is no evidence that god exists, so the only logical position to take is that he does not.

It is wrong because there IS evidence, just not evidence easy to show other people, evidence you accept. That is why it is a matter of belief.

It is illogical because anything that is not proven false is possible. You actually hit the nail when you said that I could be a mass murderer, etc. For all you know, for all anyone here knows, I could be. (I am of course not, but.. I could be lying...etc.) The "proof is on the claimant" bit applies in criminal law, because law begins with the assumption that all people are innocent unless PROVEN guilty. Logic has not such base assumptions. In fact, pure logic is one process we use to get around assumptions.
As a legal matter, I would of course object to the assertion that I am a mass murderer, etc. Logically, though, based on the limited information you have about me, you are correct to say that for all you know, I could be.

[PLAYER57832]

Evolution: Has factually based evidence to back up theory.
Creation: Has factually based evidence to back up theory.

The difference for me is Evolution has factually based evidance that disproves the Creation theory, and the Creation Theory then evolves to take into acount this new factually based evidence.

sorry, Thor, but you are just wrong. What has happened is that a few people who decided they did not like the theory of Evolution have bent over backwards to dig up anything they could to find an alternative theory. THERE IS NO ALTERNATE EVIDENCE, not really! There is just a group of people, growing in numbers quickly, who decide not to believe Evolution, who mostly don't even understand what they are refuting. (Widowmakers changed his initial post, intially it had all sorts of misinformation and false assumptions ranging from the basic assumption that Evolution is against God to the idea that if one part of Darwin's theory was wrong, then modern Evolution theory is just wrong, etc.)

Much of what is put forward as fact in the IRC website is distorted, incomplete or even just plain wrong.

The TRUTH is that they realized a long time ago (roughly 20 years ago, to be precise) that kids taught true science and Evolution would not grow up to believe Creationism, so they stopped refuting it directly and began teaching through homeschooling and private schools their own versions of truth.
Now, their efforts are coming to fruition. However, still, even today any time we challange Creationist to a serious debate, it gets either bogged down into a kind of "we believe God -- you cannot" "oh, yes we can.." "No you CANNOT" type argument or gets ended with a "you just follow experts"/ "science uses differant assumptions from us.. no point even trying to communicate".

I have had an open and standing invitation to many. Widowmakers took me up for a while, but the debate basically quagmired a month or 2 ago. He may return (he is busy..does drop out and come back to debates). Desoulman tried for a while, so have others.

I am not the only one. Various scientific journals have had open and standing requests that Creationists present the scientific alternative evidence they say exists.. the alternate possibilities. They have not done so.

Man has always needed to have at least one higher being to keep control of its population, to blame for crop failures, natural disasters, terrible and tragic events, in fact anything man has not understood or accepted that has occured in his local envioroment, but not just to blame for disasters also to give hope, a beliefe in a higher being is also inspirational to man and can help him achieve greater things simply by a belief that he has a purpose and can make a difference for the better.
Yes i am an athiest, but to me a belief in a higher being of greater moral values, is a good thing, it helps to keep society civilised, we all agree if i where to murder my next door neighbour for his possesions it would be morally wrong, a belief in a higher being i believe over the course of human kind was used to carve these morals.
To end my views, if you truely believe your right, thats all that should really matter to you.

I am not an atheist, and I agree with the first part of what you say here. However, the end part... about believing we are right is enough.. is wrong.

The problem is that this is NOT simply an attack on one minor theory of science. For their ideas to be correct, VAST AREAS of science ... virtually all of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, hydrology, etc.. ALL must be wrong. For Creationism to be wrong, Astronomy and even much of anthropology/history must be wrong. When you look at the people putting forward these ideas, you also see disclaimers of many other things brought forward by science... Begin with the admittedly complex issue of Global climate change to some medical advances/how we should deal with diseases to things like drilling in the artic (if new oil is being created, why should we worry?)...

The impacts are wide and profound. It DOES concern us all.

[andy_is_awesome]

Evolution: Has factually based evidence to back up theory.
Creation: Has factually based evidence to back up theory.

The difference for me is Evolution has factually based evidance that disproves the Creation theory, and the Creation Theory then evolves to take into acount this new factually based evidence.

I am reading a book called "the evolution handbook" (out of print, so good luck finding it!).
If you think that the theory of evolution hasn't evolved itself, you are grossly mistaken.
The theory has reconstructed itself several times after it has been disproven by scientific evidence.
So, like you said about creationism, it also has "evoved to take into acount this new factually based evidence"

PS - How many decades...ur...centuries has this discussion been going on? Nothing new or profound will be found in these posts. But it does make a good topic for discussion.

[PLAYER57832]

Evolution: Has factually based evidence to back up theory.
Creation: Has factually based evidence to back up theory.

The difference for me is Evolution has factually based evidance that disproves the Creation theory, and the Creation Theory then evolves to take into acount this new factually based evidence.

I am reading a book called "the evolution handbook" (out of print, so good luck finding it!).
If you think that the theory of evolution hasn't evolved itself, you are grossly mistaken.
The theory has reconstructed itself several times after it has been disproven by scientific evidence.
So, like you said about creationism, it also has "evoved to take into acount this new factually based evidence"

PS - How many decades...ur...centuries has this discussion been going on? Nothing new or profound will be found in these posts. But it does make a good topic for discussion.

Science .. ALL science changes, refines, BUT.. scientists admit this, in fact it is how science works, through challenge.

The problem with Creationism is not that it has changed, it is that they KEEP saying "this is IT, this is what the Bible SAYS, anything else is wrong"... and THEN come back a few years later with "oops, yes, I guess we were wrong, BUT... now we really do have the PROOF". (examples: all animals were put here by God exactly as they are now .. except now microevolution occurs, just not macroevolution

Dinosaurs never happened (they were not in the Bible)... BUT now they are in the Bible!

Fossils are not real.... OK, yes they are, but geologists are wrong about how they formed

Transition fossils don't appear .. OK, some do, but they are mis-identified and anyway, if they really were transition fossils we should see many more.

Those are just a very few examples.

Contrast that with science:

Darwin (actually not the first to think of these ideas, just the first to publish them concisely). Saw many fossils that were related, many species with only minor changes from others, etc. He envisioned a progression from one species to another, but himself did not see how it happened and actually did not see how it could have happened in the time he thought available.

Now we have genetics, know about mutations and gene recombination. We know that there were a series of huge die-offs that left only a relative "few" species to proliferate. ETC.

The difference? Scientists KNOW, acknowledge they did not and do not have all the answers. The refine the theory as EVIDENCE becomes available.

Creationists START with "This is the TRUTH".. go out and try to find evidence to support their ideas. Only if they absolutely cannot find anything do they go back and say "Okay, well.. maybe there is another answer."

[john9blue]

Science .. ALL science changes, refines, BUT.. scientists admit this, in fact it is how science works, through challenge.

The problem with Creationism is not that it has changed, it is that they KEEP saying "this is IT, this is what the Bible SAYS, anything else is wrong"... and THEN come back a few years later with "oops, yes, I guess we were wrong, BUT... now we really do have the PROOF". (examples: all animals were put here by God exactly as they are now .. except now microevolution occurs, just not macroevolution

Dinosaurs never happened (they were not in the Bible)... BUT now they are in the Bible!

Fossils are not real.... OK, yes they are, but geologists are wrong about how they formed

Transition fossils don't appear .. OK, some do, but they are mis-identified and anyway, if they really were transition fossils we should see many more.

Those are just a very few examples.

Contrast that with science:

Darwin (actually not the first to think of these ideas, just the first to publish them concisely). Saw many fossils that were related, many species with only minor changes from others, etc. He envisioned a progression from one species to another, but himself did not see how it happened and actually did not see how it could have happened in the time he thought available.

Now we have genetics, know about mutations and gene recombination. We know that there were a series of huge die-offs that left only a relative "few" species to proliferate. ETC.

The difference? Scientists KNOW, acknowledge they did not and do not have all the answers. The refine the theory as EVIDENCE becomes available.

Creationists START with "This is the TRUTH".. go out and try to find evidence to support their ideas. Only if they absolutely cannot find anything do they go back and say "Okay, well.. maybe there is another answer."

Ironically PLAYER, it seems to me to be the other way around. Theists make it quite clear that what they think is truth is just a belief. Scientists, on the other hand, have "theories" and "facts" which are subject to change, yet many of them don't realize that science is full of beliefs as well. Even Einstein considered his understanding of quantum physics a "scientific fact" until Niels Bohr came along. I realize that science often has better evidence for what they believe to be true. But most religions modify their systems of thought to include new discoveries, just as science itself modifies to reflect new discoveries. You can't place these guys in two exclusive camps!

The reason Young Earth Creationists actively seek evidence for their specific viewpoint is because they already HAVE theories regarding the origins of life/universe/everything. You could even go so far as to call them scientific theorists, since they have a theory and seek evidence. But you have sure met some intolerant Creationists if you think they are all closed to any other possibilities.

[PLAYER57832]

Ironically PLAYER, it seems to me to be the other way around. Theists make it quite clear that what they think is truth is just a belief. Scientists, on the other hand, have "theories" and "facts" which are subject to change, yet many of them don't realize that science is full of beliefs as well. Even Einstein considered his understanding of quantum physics a "scientific fact" until Niels Bohr came along. I realize that science often has better evidence for what they believe to be true. But most religions modify their systems of thought to include new discoveries, just as science itself modifies to reflect new discoveries. You can't place these guys in two exclusive camps!

The reason Young Earth Creationists actively seek evidence for their specific viewpoint is because they already HAVE theories regarding the origins of life/universe/everything. You could even go so far as to call them scientific theorists, since they have a theory and seek evidence. But you have sure met some intolerant Creationists if you think they are all closed to any other possibilities.

I would have to see evidence that Einstein considered his theories "facts".

For my part, I see no conflict between Christianity and science. They both approach truth, just from different directions.

As for my ideas on Creationists, I usually either respond to a specific person or cite the Institute for Creation Research website. What the Institute is putting forward is anything BUT science.

As for other Creationists being scientific. When you know what the conclusion must be, then you have closed your mind off to other possibilities automatically. Scientists do this unconsciously at times. This is the opposite of science. This is one reason why young scientists with fresh perspectives may be more likely to come up with truly earth-shattering stuff, because they are less bounded by what they have seen and so forth. However, the body of science is about working to get around those biases and out to real truth.

This is not about religion. It is about shaking the foundations of science because some people do not like much of what science has been putting forward.